San Antonio General Maintenance, Inc. v. Abnor
34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,400, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14296, 691 F. Supp. 1462 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal agency's procurement decision will not be overturned as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act if the agency rationally applies the relevant factors set forth in its own internal operating procedures to reach its conclusion.
Facts:
- San Antonio General Maintenance, Inc. (SAGM), led by Pedro Molina, Jr., was a participant in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Section 8(a) program, which aids socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses.
- In 1984, while in the program, SAGM was awarded an 8(a) contract to provide custodial services at Kelly Air Force Base.
- SAGM graduated from the 8(a) program in June 1985, making it ineligible for new 8(a) contracts.
- SAGM's custodial contract at Kelly Air Force Base, which had been extended, was set to expire on September 30, 1987.
- In early 1987, SAGM began discussions with the SBA, anticipating that the Kelly contract would be opened to a competitive bidding process in which SAGM could participate as a non-8(a) firm.
- In June 1987, the SBA and the Air Force decided to keep the Kelly contract within the 8(a) program and award it to another qualifying business, Rite-Way Services, Inc.
- SAGM believed this decision contradicted an established SBA policy that allowed graduating firms to bid competitively on the contracts they previously held under the 8(a) program.
Procedural Posture:
- San Antonio General Maintenance, Inc. (SAGM) originally filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas but then voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.
- SAGM and Pedro G. Molina, Jr., then filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Secretary of the Air Force in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Contemporaneously with the complaint, SAGM moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
- The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- The court consolidated the motions and held a final hearing on the merits before issuing its decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Small Business Administration's (SBA) decision to retain a government contract within its 8(a) program for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, rather than releasing it for competitive bidding upon the graduation of the incumbent contractor, constitute an arbitrary and capricious action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Joyce Hens Green
No, the SBA's decision to retain the Kelly contract within the 8(a) program was not arbitrary and capricious. An agency's procurement decision will be upheld if it is based on a consideration of the relevant factors and there is a rational connection between the facts and the choice made. Here, the court determined that the governing agency policy was not a general rule allowing graduating firms to bid competitively, but rather the multi-factor test outlined in its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 80-05. The SBA official, Joseph Luna, applied the four factors from the SOP: (1) the incumbent firm's size, (2) the existence of contract options to ease transition, (3) the contract's importance to the firm's stability, and (4) the needs of other 8(a) firms. While the first factor favored SAGM, the other three supported retaining the contract within the program. Because the SBA considered the relevant factors from its own established policy and articulated a rational basis for its decision, the action was not arbitrary or capricious, warranting deference from the court. Similarly, the Air Force acted within its discretion under Section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which permits the use of 8(a) contracts to meet its goals for disadvantaged businesses.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant judicial deference afforded to federal agencies in the realm of government procurement. It illustrates that under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, a court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. The case establishes that an agency's internal documents, such as a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), can constitute the binding 'law' or policy against which its actions are judged. For future litigants challenging a procurement decision, this case underscores the high burden of proving that the agency wholly ignored its own policies or that its reasoning was completely irrational, rather than simply disagreeing with the agency's conclusion.
